Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

а

lot was vested in him, and the commissioner street lot. This report was confirmed on was ordered to report to the next term of January 16, 1869, and the cause was rethe court what disposition he had made of ferred to the clerk to report whether it the money

would be best to invest the proceeds in the On the 19th of January, 1869, he reported Main-street lot or in the Beale-street lot. that he had used $8,109 in the purchase of a

The clerk and master reported that the lot on the north side of Beale street, and Main-street lot was the better investment, that by mistake he had taken the title to and should be made. This report was conhimself, instead of to his wife and children, firmed on the 10th of February, 1869, and and he preferred to convey the Beale-street it was ordered that the Main-street lot lot to his wife and children, to hold just as they held the Market-street lot, or, in lieu should be taken and accepted as an investthereof, to convey to them the Main-street

ment of the Market-street property. And lot, which at that time belonged to him, to it was further ordered that all right, title, be held in the same way by his wife and and interest of the said Jacob Weller in children. This report sets out that the

said Main-street lot should be devested out Main-street lot was more valuable than of him, and vested in said Caroline I. either the Market-street lot or the Beale. 'Weller and her children by the said Jacob estate to his wife without qualification or from her husband, which does not become reservation. Groff v. Rohrer, 35 Md. 327. statutory separate estate or equitable separate

But he may still retain the power of pre estate by reason of being conveyed to her venting a disposition of the property.

sole and separate use, is held subject 'to her A conveyance of the homestead by the hus common-law disabilities, so that her husband band to the wife will not empower her to is entitled to curtesy in it. Zeust v. Staffan, convey it by an instrument in which the hus 16 App. D. C. 141. band does not join, where the statute provides On the other hand, a man will deprive him. that conveyance or encumbrance by the self of his rights of curtesy by conveying land owner is of no validity unless the husband, or to his wife for life with remainder to her wife, if the owner is married, concurs in and heirs, since there can be no curtesy in a life signs the same joint instrument. Spoon v. estate. Phillips v. Lalorge, 89 Mo. 72, 1 S. W. Van Fossen, 53 Iowa, 494, 5 N. W. 624.

220. Under the Indiana statutes, the husband was So, if property is conveyed to a married required to join in the conveyance to alienate woman in such a manner as to give her a the separate estate of a married woman. Sims power of alienation over it free from the conv. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 9 Am. Rep. 679.

trol of her husband, his rights of curtesy do And under a statute which permits a mar not attach to it if she effects an alienation ried woman to become seised of land by direct before her death. Chapman v. Price, 83 Va. gift or purchase in her own name, and as of her 392, 11 S. D. 879. own property, she becomes vested by a gift In Rautenbusch v. Donaldson, 13 Ky. L. to her from her husband of the fee in which Rep. 752, 18 S. W. 536, where the rights of he retains his marital rights. Mutual F. Ins. a second husband to land conveyed to the wife Co. v. Deale, 18 Md. 26, 79 Am, Dec. 673. by the first one were involved, the court says

that where the language used in the conb. Curtesy.

veyance expresses a plain intent to deprive the

husband of the right of curtesy his claim to BINGHAM V. WELLER raises a very interest a life estate is barred. ing question. Does a man, by conveying prop And the question may be solved by the proerty to his wife, deprive himself of all rights visions of the statute. of curtesy therein ? In that case the convey.

Thus, real estate conveyed to a woman by ance was to the sole and separate use of the her husband cannot be held to her sole and wife, and the court followed the line of deci separate use under the New Hampshire statsions which hold that there are no rights of utes, and therefore his right of curtesy in it curtesy in separate estate. But would the remains unimpaired. Robie v. Chapman, 59 same rule apply where the conveyance is not N. H. 41. expressly made to the separate use of the wife, But by the Ohio statutes a surviving hus. but is he to be so by construction ? After dis band without issue born during coverture is tinguishing the cases as much as possible, there not entitled to curtesy in the lands of his seems to be some conflict on this question. deceased wife as against her issue by a former The terms of the conveyance in

in husband, unless the lands were obtained by stances have determined the question in favor gift from himself. Denny v. McCabe, 35 of or against the right.

Ohio St. 576. Thus, a grant by a man to his wife, which In New York the woman has the right to expressly states that it is for the purpose of dispose of her separate estate during life, but providing sustenance for him, his wife, and in case she does not do so her husband may two children now living, and any children have his curtesy. which may hereafter be born, does not exclude Therefore, a man is entitled to curtesy in the grantor from the right to take the personal a lot conveyed to his wife through the medium property at the death of his wife by his of a third person by deed which makes no menright of marriage, or to inherit the real estate tion of his marital rig where she die under the statutes of descent. Allen v. West seised of it and leaves no will. Vanderveer v. brook, 16 Lea, 251.

Vanderveer, 17 N. Y. S. R. 648, 1 N. Y. Supp. So, property acquired by a married woman 897.

some

Weller in like manner as they owned the John J. Weller, were entitled to a one-third Market-street property under the deed from interest in common in the Market-street Henry B. Joiner, and that the title be vested property, and upon the death of her mother in them and their assigns, forever.

she inherited one fourth of her one-third During the pendency of this case Henry interest; so that her interest in the property Clay and Robert F. died intestate, and with is five twelfths of the same. out children. Caroline I. Weller has died, The argument is that the decree of the leaving her husband, Jacob Weller, and the court construing the deed of Joiner to Mrs. four children, Mrs. Bingham, John J., Caro- Weller adjudged that the title to the lot was line I., and Forrest L.

vested in Mrs. Weller and her children, and It is insisted on behalf of Mrs. Bingham all the parties in interest being before the that the last proceeding in the court to court in that case are bound by its decrees which we have referred vested the title to construing the deed and fixing the right of the property in Caroline I. Weller and her the parties. two children, Mrs. Bingham and John J. The chancellor, in his decree in the presWeller, who were alive at the time the deed ent case, however, adjudged that the title to was made by Joiner in 1851; and hence Mrs. Market-street property was vested in CaroWeller, the mother, and Mrs. Bingham and 'line I. Weller in fee simple.

So, in Clark v. Clark. 24 Barb. 582, it is rights of curtesy. Dugger v. Dugger, 84 Va. said with respect to estates acquired during 130, 4 S. E. 171. coverture, the rights of curtesy of the hus Where the husband is not entitled to curtesy band were not defeated by the statutes es in the separate estate of his wife an absolute tablishing separate estates of married women, deed of property from him to her, which unless the property was conveyed or devised vests the title in her as her separate estate, before the owner's death.

deprives him of his right to curtesy in the And in Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1 Ves. Jr. property. Sayers v. Wall, 6 Gratt. 373, 21 46, it was held that a married woman may Am. Rep. 303. dispose of her personal separate estate by A husband is not entitled to curtesy in an law free from any claim of her husband. equitable estate of the wife created by himself. If no disposition is made the husband succeeds Jones v. Jones, 96 Va. 749, 32 S. E. 463. And as next of kin, not in consequence of marital the court says a husband, if he survives his rights.

wife and the common-law requisites exist, is One of the most valuable incidents of sep entitled to any curtesy in any real estate held arate estate is destroyed if the husband is by her as her equitable separate estate which held to have a right of curtesy therein. He may remain at her death undisposed of by is thereby given practically an absolute veto her during the coverture, or by will, under upon her power of alienation, and the trend

a power to that effect vested in her by the of the law would seem to be against the instrument creating the separate estate, just recognition of such right. This is well il as in any other real estate of inheritance lustrated by BINGHAM WELLER, notwith owned by her, unless his marital rights are standing the fact that in Frazer v. High excluded by such instrument. Where the tower, 12 Heisk. 94, it is said that it is equitable separate estate is created by the settled law in Tennessee that a man is en husband, the intention to exclude is presumed, titled to curtesy in the property held by a or results from the transaction itself, except trustee for the separate use of his wife. so far as he may have reserved his marital

And in Wood v. Polk, 12 Heisk. 222, it is rights in the instrument creating the separate held that to exclude the marital rights of the estate. The law attaches to every absolute husband that intention must have been conveyance complete alienation of the entire pressly declared, Yet the court in the BING interest of the grantor so far as the alienaHAM CASE holds that a

cannot convey tion is permitted by the rules of law and property to the separate use of his wife, and equity. Upon this point the law presumes that still retain a veto power over it.

a liusband, by an absolute conveyance creating That decision finds support in decisions from an equitable separate estate in the wife, intend. some of the other states.

ed to vest in her his entire interest in the subThus, a conveyance in trust for the use and ject conveyed, including all his marital rights, benefit of grantor's wife, SO that the same present and future; and the conveyance is so shall not be subject in any case

the construed. future control, debts, or liabilities of her But other courts have taken the opposite present or any future husband, deprives her view. husband of any right of curtesy in the prop Thus, where a deed from a man to bis erty. Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. 361.

wife creates in her an equitable estate he has So, property conveyed by a man to his wife an estate for life in it as tenant by the curtesy. is within the operation of a constitutional Such a deed does not convey the estate by the provision abolishing his rights of curtesy in curtesy unless it is so expressed. Ball v. Bail, her separate estate. Walker y. Long, 109 N. 20 R. I. 520, 40 Atl. 234. C. 510, 14 S. E. 299.

In Reagle v. Reagle, 179 Pa. 89, 36 Atl. A husband is not entitled to curtesy in the 191, it is assumed that the husband has curstatutory separate estate of his wife which he tesy in land which he has conveyed to his has created for her benefit. Ratliff v. Ratliff, wife. 102 Va, 880, 47 S. E. 1007.

In Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo, 255, AffirmA separate estate created in the wife by a ing 6 Mo. App. 549, it was held that the hus. conveyance from ber husband excludes his band had the right of curtesy in real estate

V.

ex

man

to

The construction contended for by Mrs. in like manner as they owned and held the Bingham cuts out the after-born children Market-street property under the deed from from any interest in the property, and also Joiner to them. Now, the deed from Joiner cuts out the husband from any interest as to Caroline I. Weller recites that the proptenant by curtesy.

erty is conveyed to Caroline I. Weller and We are of opinion that the language used her “body” heirs; and under the uniform by the chancellor in fixing the rights of the course of our decisions this vested a fee-simwife and children of Jacob Weller in the ple estate in Caroline I. Weller, and vested Main-street property intended to place the no estate in her children. Middleton v. title and interest in the property exactly as Smith, 1 Coldw. 144; Kirk v. Furgerson, it existed under the deed from Joiner to 6 Coldw. 483; Wynne v. Wynne, 9 Heisk. Caroline I. Weller to the Market-street prop- 309; Ouen v. Hancock, 1 Head, 563. erty. The decree is confusing and contra Under these contradictory terms of the dictory in its terms, in that it vests the title decree, we are of the opinion that the court in the Main-street property in the wife and intended to vest the title to the Main-street children of Jacob Weller, to be held by them, lot in Caroline I. Weller in fee-simple, just their heirs and assigns; but it further pro- as she took title to the Market-street lot vides that they should hold it and own it under the Joiner deed.

conveyed by him to trustees for the sole and wife in consideration of one which, being her separate use of his wife.

property, came to him by the marriage. Avery A conveyance by a man of real estate to the V. Avery, 12 Tex. 56, 62 Am. Dec. 513. sole and separate use of his wife does not de Where the intention of a man is clear and prive him of his rights of curtesy, and she manifest to make a gift to his wife equity has no power to will the property in such a will uphold it against his personal representaway as to do so. Soltan v. Soltan, 93 Mo. tives. Ratcliffe v. Dougherty, 24 Miss. 181 ; 307, 6 S. W. 93.

Wells v. Treadwell, 28 Miss. 717; Fatheree A man is entitled to curtesy in the equitable v. Fletcher, 31 Miss. 265. separate estate of his wife, Cornwell v. Or In Horder v. Horder, 23 Kan. 391, 33 Am. ton, 126 Mo. 355, 27 S. W. 536.

Rep. 167, the court, in upholding a conveyance A wife cannot deprive the husband of cur of property by a man to his wife as against tesy in her lands by will. Casler v. Gray, 159 his heir, says: "Men of sound minds and not Mo. 588, 60 S. W. 1032.

under guardianship should have the privilege The husband was entitled to curtesy in the of disposing of their property as they please, equitable estate vested in the wife by a con so long as they do not interfere with the rights veyance from him prior to the passage of the of creditors, or of persons dependent upon married woman's acts. Miller v. Quick, 158

them for support." Mo. 495, 59 S. W. 95).

in Hartwell v. Jackson, 7 Tex. 576, alA man is not barred of his rights of curtesy though there were elements of estoppel in the in property which he conveys to his wife by case, the court seems to have proceeded upon deed of general warranty. Deming v. Miles, the theory that a man may make a valid bill 35 Neb. 739, 37 Am. St. Rep. 464, 53 N. W. of sale or deed of gift to his wife, which will 665.

be enforced against his heirs. In Indianapolis, B & W. R. Co. v. McLaugh A gift by a man to his wife of bank shares lin, 77 III. 275, it is held that in property con may be upheld against the claims of his heirs. veyed by a man to his wife he has no estate Adams v. Brackett, 5 Met. 280. during coverture; but it is intimated that on The widow may hold gifts of personal propthe birth of a child he may have a tenancy erty from her husband, which he has not reby the curtesy initiate.

voked at the time of his death, against his A conveyance of real estate by a man to personal representatives. Fisk v. Cushman, his wife vests in her the equitable title leav 6 Cush. 20, 52 Am. Dec. 761, ing the legal title in him; and upon her death A gift of money by a man to his wife gives he is entitled to curtesy. Ogden v. Ogden, her a valid title thereto after his death as 60 Ark. 70, 46 Am. St. Rep. 151, 28 S. W. 796. against his legal representatives. McCluskey

v. Provident Sav. Inst. 103 Mass. 300. VIII. Rights against husband's heirs.

Although the husband retains the legal title

to personalty given by him to his wife, upon If the husband does not attempt to revoke his death, which removes her disabilities, the the conveyance during his lifetime the attempt title will vest in her eo instanti, and will not by the heirs to set it aside will meet with descend to his personal representatives. little favor.

Thomas v. Harkness, 13 Bush, 27, Overruling A conveyance of all his property by a man Bridges y. Wood, 4 Dana, 610. to his wife upon a strong, meritorious con A gift of land will be sustained in equity sideration will be upheld in equity against as against the heirs of the husband. Majors the heirs of the husband. Jones v. Obenchain, v. Everton, 89 III. 56, 31 Am. Rep. 65. 10 Gratt. 259.

An absolute gift of property hy a man to A gift by a man to his wife of all his prop his wife makes her the absolute Owner as erty will be upheld against his heirs if it is against his representatives, and upon his death no more than a reasonable provision for the the legal and equitable titles unite in her so wife. Wood v. Broadley, 76 Mo. 23, 43 Am. as to permit her to recover possession of the Rep. 754.

property in an action at law. Underhill The heirs of a man cannot assert title in a Morgan, 33 Conn. 105. slave which he procured to be conveyed to his If the husband makes actual gift of

[ocr errors]

an

It follows that, upon the death of Caroline from all his control and liabilities, but with I. Weller, her husband, Jacob Weller, became full power to her to sell, convey, or mortentitled to an estate by curtesy in the Main gage the same at her pleasure. The habenstreet lot; and that, subject to this curtesy dum recites that she is to have and to hold interest, the estate vested in the heirs of it as separate estate as above stated, with Mrs. Caroline I. Weller, but no estate vested power of alienation, and it contains a general in them until her death, and then only as warranty. her heirs.

It is insisted for complainant that the As to this feature of the case the decree terms and the language of this deed deprive of the chancellor is reversed and modified her husband, Jacob Weller, of any interest so as to give to Jacob Weller a curtesy in- in the estate, both during the life of the terest in the Main-street lot or its proceeds. wife and after her death.

The title to the Beale-street lot was vested In the answer filed in this case two of the in Caroline I. Weller by deed from her hus- children-Carrie I. and Forrest L.-set out band, Jacob Weller, executed April 10, 1876. over their signatures that they desire their The husband conveys this property to the father, Jacob Weller, to retain possession of wife to her sole, separate, and exclusive use this Beale-street lot, and receive the rents as a separate estate, free and discharged 'therefrom as long as he lives.

money to the wife, which she retains until munity property is valid. Higgins v. Higgins, after his death, though he could have re- 46 Cal. 259; Jackson v. Torrence, 83 Cal. 521, claimed it during his lifetime the personal 23 Pac. 695 ; Carter v. McQuade, 83 Cal. 278, representative cannot recover it of her,

Pur- 23 Pac. 348. year v. Puryear, 12 Ala. 13.

A gift by a man to his wife of the comCourts of equity may recognize and en- munity property by purchasing real estate and force contracts between husband and wife in having the title transferred to her is valid. her favor as against his administrator. So Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440; Wright v. that where he purchases slaves in her name. Wright (Cal.) 41 Pac. 695 ; Alferitz v. Arand treats them as her property, during his rivillaga, 143 Cal. 646, 77 Pac. 657. lifetime, and the property purchased is a rea- If a man causes a deed for property pursonable portion for her, equity will uphold chased with community funds to be made to the transaction. Williams v. Mauil, 20 Ala. his wife reciting that it is for her separate 721.

use, the title will vest in her as her separate A gift by a man to his wife will be upheld estate. McCutchen v. Purinton, 84 Tex. 604, in equity as against his heirs. Riley v. Riley, 19 S. W. 710. 25 Conn. 154. The court says of Dibble v. Hut- The husband may, by direct conveyance, ton, 1 Day, 221, that, so far as it holds a con- convert community property into separate estrary doctrine, the question can no longer be tate of his wife. Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. considered as standing where it stood when 305, 76 Am. Dec. 106; Smith v. Boquet, 27 that case was decided; that that case is an Tex. 507; Lewis v. Simon, 72 Tex. 470, 10 anomaly in the law, and its doctrine is not S. W. 554 ; Callahan v. Houston, 78 Tex. 494, at this time satisfactory to the profession;

14 S. W. 1027. that the doctrine of the case so viewed is an And a deed of community property will conilliberal and obsolete relic of the ancient law vert it into separate estate. Hunter v. Hunter of baron and feme.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 820. Taking security for money loaned in the A deed by a man to his wife of community joint names of husband and wife will entitle property will vest the title in her as against the wife to claim it against the personal rep- his subsequent grantees. Taylor v. Opperman, resentatives of the husband in case he dies 79 Cal. 468, 21 Pac. 869. leaving the securities outstanding. Christ's But the presumption that the property beHospital v. Budgin, 2 Vern. 683.

came the separate property of the wife may A deposit of money in the name of husband De rebutted. Smith v. Strahan, 25 Tex. 103. and wife becomes hers upon his decease with- And a conveyance by a man to his wife of out disturbing it. Roman Catholic Orphan community property may be shown by parol Asylum v. Strain, 2 Bradf. 34.

evidence not to have been intended to become A note given by husband to wife may be en- her separate estate, notwithstanding the deed forced against his estate. Templeton v. Brown,

recites the consideration paid out of her sep86 Tenn. 55, 5 S. W. 441.

arate property, where the recital of considera. But it has been held that equity will not

tion was without the knowledge of the grantor. enforce a conveyance to the wife against a Kahn v. Kahn (Tex. Civ. App.) 56 S. W. 946. child for whom no provision has been made. If the property is purchased with community Crooks v. Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610.

money, and, at the instance of the husband,

conveyed to the wife, the presumption is that IX. IIomestead and community.

the property remains community property ; but

this presumption may be rebutted. Hall v. The rule which permits the husband to make Hall, 52 Tex. 294, 36 Am. Rep. 725. valid conveyance to his wife applies to prop- Community property conveyed by the huserty in which they have a common interest. band to a third person, and by the latter to

Since the passage of the married women's the wife, remains community property. Parker acts a grant by a man to his wife of his v. Chance, 11 Tex. 513. The court says it is interest in property held by entireties with her immaterial whether the reconveyance be to the is valid. Meeker v. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262.

wife or husband, or whether it be in the A gift by a man to his wife of the com- name of either or both, the property conveyed a conveyance of land by a husband to his belongs to the community. The direction of a marriage. Burkett v. Burkett, 78 Cal. 310, the husband that the deed shall be made out in 3 L. R. A. 781, 12 Am. St. Rep. 58, 20 Pac. the name of the wife is not of itself sufficient 715, to rebut the presumption that the property A conveyance of the homestead by the husbelongs to the community. When the husband band to the wife does not render it liable to intends to relinquish his right in the com- her prior debts. Green V. Farrar, 53 Iowa, munity property and transfer it to his wife, 426, 5 N. W. 557. his act must be explicit and such as to leave linder a statute requiring the acknowledgno doubt as to his intentions. A mere transfer ment of both husband and wife to convey the of the property to a stranger, with directions homestead, the acknowledgment of the wife to reconvey to the wife, will not accomplish is not necessary when the homestead is conthe object, and show that a donation was in- veyed to her by her husband. Furrow v. Athey, tended.

It has been held by this court that a deed The case of Barnum v. Le Master, 110 made by a third person to the wife, her heirs | Tenn. 638, ante 353, 75 S. W. 1045, is cited and assigns, forever, to be free from the to sustain this contention. In that case the control and liabilities she may hereafter court undertook to say what effect should be have, with full power to dispose of the same given a deed from the husband to the wife, at all times as she deems proper, does not and the court held that it should be held to deprive the husband of this curtesy estate pass to the wife the highest estate that the in such property after her death. Carter v. husband could convey. In the course of the Dale, 3 Lea, 710, 31 Am. Rep. 660; Frazer opinion the court uses language as follows: v. Hightower, 12 Heisk. 94; Baker v. Heis- “If a transfer of personal property to the kell, 1 Coldw. 641.

wife by her husband did not, of its own force, Clearly there is nothing in this deed to vest in her a separate estate, the transfer deprive the husband of his curtesy interest would be a farce, and perhaps a fraud upon in this land if the deed had been made by her, because the husband would immediately a third person; and this is virtually ad- become again the owner of it by virtue of mitted. But it is said that, inasmuch as the his marital rights, and the wife would take deed was made by the husband to the wife, nothing. If the same result did not follow a different rule prevails.

21 Neb. 671, 59 Am. Rep. 867, 33 N. W. 208; The presumption is that purchases by a Harsh v. Griffin, 72 Iowa, 608, 34 N. W. 441. man in the name of his wife with community

If the wife declares a homestead upon propfunds do not change the character of the erty which has been given her by her husband community property. Smith v. Strahan, 16 the title thereto upon the death of the wife Tex. 314, 67 Am. Dec. 622; Higgins v. John- becomes vested in the husband. Ions v. Harson, 20 Tex. 389, 70 Am. Dec. 394.

bison, 112 Cal. 260, 44 Pac. 572. But this presumption may be rebutted by proof of intention to make the property her

X. Effect of divorce. separate estate. Higgins v. Johnson, 20 Tex. 389, 70 Am. Dec. 394.

The marital rights of a man in land, which So, in Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 305, 76 by his direction have been conveyed to his Am, Dec. 106, the court says, in the absence wife, are cut off by a decree of divorce in her of any intention outside of the deed it must favor adjudging him to be the guilty party. be taken as evidencing the intention which Schuster v. Schuster, 93 Mo. 438, 6 S. W. 259. upon its face it imports; that is, to convey to A settlement of real estate by a man upon the wife the estate of the husband in the his wife will not be set aside because of her property. The court further says, such a deed subsequent divorce for her previous adultery. must have been intended to have some opera- Lister v. Lister, 35 N. J. Eq. 49. tion upon the estate of the grantor, and that When a woman is granted a divorce from must be taken to have been to change the bed and board because abandoned by her husestate from community into separate property band, gifts of real estate which he has made of the wife, in the absence of evidence of any to her will not be restored to him. Orr v. Orr, other or different purpose in the making of 8 Bush, 156. the conveyance. To deny it that effect would The husband cannot regain the title, albe to render the deed wholly inoperative and though the divorce is granted for fa of void.

the wife. Kinzey v. Kinzey, 115 Mo. 496, 20 The gift of homestead property by a hus- L. R. A. 222, 22 S. W. 497. band to his wife vests in her the legal estate But, since it is inequitable that a subject to his rights in the homestead. Oaks suing for divorce should retain property which v. Oaks, 94 Cal. 66, 29 Pac. 330; Re Lamb, 95 has been settled upon her, she may be required Cal 397, 30 Pac. 568.

by the court to make a reconveyance of it Where, by statute, a husband and wife may before her prayer for relief will be granted. enter into an agreement or transaction with Oliver v. Oliver, 5 Ala. 75. each other respecting property, which either And in Fitts v. Fitts, 14 Tex. 443, the court, might if unmarried, a conveyance to his wife, upon granting a divorce according to the reby a man, of property upon which he has de- quirements of the Texas statute, placed propclared a homestead, will vest the title in her, erty which had been conveyed by the husband so that upon their separation she will be the in trust for the wife in the hands of a truste former owner, within the provision of a stat- to be managed for the benefit of the husband, ute requiring the court to assign homestead wife, and children. The court said she deproperty to the former owner upon dissolving ! rived the property from him. He could not

woman

« AnteriorContinuar »